Updated 10:00 pm, Tuesday, December 20, 2005

The decision modified a lower court ruling that said City Light could not spend ratepayers' money on public art, but it upheld the court's decision that the art must have a "sufficiently close nexus" to City Light's primary purpose of providing electricity to its customers.

Some Oregon Residents Upset at Prospect of Pumping Their Own GasBuzz 60

Doug Baldwin playcallingBy Michael-Shawn Dugar, SeattlePI

Van Crashes Into Pedestrians Injuring SixAssociated Press

US military to accept transgender recruits after Trump drops appealEuronews

Snow on Christmas Eve, 2017Seattle Post-Intelligencer

Ice carving at WinterfestSeattle Post-Intelligencer

Amtrak derails near OlympiaGrant Hindsley / SeattlePI

Golden retriever meets Darth Vader and EwokSeattle Post-Intelligencer

Seattle's tunnel project, 2017 in reviewWSDOT

Hillary Clinton Book Signing Capitol HillSeattle Post-Intelligencer

City Light customers sued the city, alleging that City Light bought art that was for the benefit of the general public and not just ratepayers. A King County Superior Court judge ruled that the city's One Percent for Art ordinance -- which requires all city departments to allocate 1 percent of their capital project budgets for public art -- couldn't be applied to City Light. The city appealed the lower court's ruling.

The appeals court also affirmed a lower court ruling that the city must reimburse City Light for art that isn't related to its business.That amount will be for $941,312, Bystrom said.

David Jurca, the attorney who represented the City Light customers, said he was pleased.

"If the city acts the way it's supposed to act in the future, that will be fine as long as they only use that money for art that is closely connected to the utility business," he said.

For example, City Light could pay for art displayed in its own offices, the court said, but it could not spend money on art in traveling public exhibitions or for other city offices.

City Light spent $2.8 million on public art between 2000 and 2003, the years covered in the lawsuit, Bystrom said. It has purchased more than 100 permanent pieces of art and about 2,100 portable works since the One Percent for Art ordinance was passed in 1973, she said.

Jack Mackie, a Seattle public artist, has received numerous One Percent for Art commissions, such as the "Dance Steps" bronzed into Broadway on Capitol Hill in 1978.

"This suit was a threat to the idea that art needs to be incorporated into our daily lives," he said. "If anyone thinks the One Percent programs haven't been effective, they should imagine our city without the art in it, from small projects like the manhole covers to art in the bus tunnel, neighbor parks and community centers. Take it all away and see what you have left. Art gives our city a special character."

Mackie said the ruling does not go far enough in protecting the program. "We're going to lose all art that's not immediately tied to underground wiring," he said. "One Percent for Art programs have given our city a special character. This is a major disappointment."